crash to describe what is going on now. they like to look at it as a correction that hasto wook itself out. what they don't know and readily worry about how far down the correction has to go, how long it will take and exactly how many more people will be hurtn the process when e market decides, if it decides to turn around. that was then. back to my hair now, what do you think? you think it can't happen now. you viously forgotten bumps in the between. the crashette in 1989 trgered by a fail leveraged buyout. 9/11 that stopped trading for a week and brought an avalanche of sales and big sale orders when it did. financial meltwn four yearago th very month and spurred computer driven trading snafus peppered in between this year. the issue isn't can we have another crash, the issue is

how big when it comes. the dow sold off nearly a quarter of its value, wiped out in a single day. that would be the equivalent of the dow umbling more than 3000 points today. still back in 1987 every major blip and bump since we always heard the same stock song and dance, didn't we. can't happen again. won'thappen again. too many protections now. the circuitreakers th were supposed to arrest panic but did not. the curbs that were meant to ease us into a freefall and ease us out of a freefall that could not. try as we might new gremlins keep testing our might. that is o thing we learn from market history, the smartest programs, the fancy evident algorithms and uncanny leverage or daring derivative or i don't know, savvy swap can't prevent slop. beware those who say history can't repeat itself. history proves it always always does. to former bb&t john allison who was president of that

bank 25 years agooday on the very real warning signs it can happen again today. john, a pleasure to have you. you don't look a day older my frien but what do you make of then and now and everyone says, well, you know that is ancient history. what do you say? >>ood afternoon, neil. great to be with you. let me try to give context i was president of bb&t during that correction. it is importanto understand exactly at happened because the correction didn't happen on a short-term thing. it happened on lo-term phenomenon.% started with johnson back in e '60s when he wand a war on poverty and vietnam war an didn't want to tax people to do that, so the feds started printing money. that continued in 1970s that resulted inassive inflation. the fed had to correct the mess it made. raised the prime rate to 81%. that created severe economic correction and fall in the market. in a way it was short and clean and government didn't do anything. we srted on real solid and

real growth. alan greenspan who was the new head the fed real arbitrarily decided real growth was a bad thing the misconstrued and thought it was inflation. he started arbitrarily raisingnterest rates. neil: just to explain you're an enencyclopedia for pple who hadn't be older as we are. ronald reagan was president and point often misse in history ronald reagan's response to the crisis was essentially, don't go overboard with big fixes and expensive fixes. the famous query when asked about the falloff, i think he said something to the effect mrketso up, markets go down. in other words, don't make a mountain out of what could be a comparatively a molehill and overdo it setting up for t next crash. they kept it besides circuit brkers and curbs, they sort of limited it to that. cynics and critics of ronald reagan said at set up scandals and everything else. but i reay do think it

kept the government out of screwing up something that they would ly make worse. what do you think? >> absolutely because the market needed to correct. resources neded to be allocated. we were misallocating resources because of inflation and they needed to be reallocated. that's when we decided to have real growth. when the market prevents governments from clearing we don't have real growth and struggling like we do today. this is reality today. bernanke is pinting money like crazy for four years. stock market is reincoming somehow interest rates will be low. pes are vulnerable particularly in tech stocks or high p-etocks. if we do get growth and fed is forced to raise interest rates the market is vulnerable. the vulnerabilities long-term bond marke where the fed is arbitrarily buying down the long end. neil: that is the next bubble. every single market selloff whether singleay event or dramatic turn down of months

or years is triggered by a bubble that bursts or at least pricked and air is lling out. you could aue withreal esta in '. you could argue the mania of leveraged buyouts in '89. meltdown of real estate ain. some say it is bond market and art first quarterly low interest rates this time around as you were up toing on. ii thishe modern d bubble. >> i have been in the banking business 40 years. i think every bubble has been fundamentally cated by the federal reserve. if we d stable monetary system based on gold standa we would have much less vlatility. the fed always overacts. neil: you' right. >> they try to fix things and make a ss. i don't think markets are anywhere near as volatile as the fed is. i think the fed creates a lot ofhis market volatility by misleading people, tryi to do economicalcation -- economical class. neil: that is interesting. fed is more volatile than the markets.

always words of wisdom. thank you my friend. good to see you again. >> thank you, neil. il: maybe wall street isn't pulling something fancy or washington doing nothing at all, nothing. edward jones managing director says congress and cliff almost begs thescal markets fall off that cliff. he puts his money where his moh is. he is one of 60 bankers that sent off a letter to washington demanding actn. he i a partisan barber. we're not blaming either of you guys, do something and do something soon. have yougotten any response? >> the response that we've gotten, neil has been primarily internal at our firm. they're glad to see us speaking up, lending our voice to the need for bipartisan action as well as president and congress to come togethero the u.s. doesn't go off a fiscal cliff. neil: getting a pat on the back fromaying something bold is a far cry from

actually following up on your recommendation and doing something bold. >> well, no that's very edward jones helps serious long term individual investors to reach their financial goals. wework with very conservative individuals who are frustrated, who are fearful right w, who are very concerned the lack of action, gridlockin washington wl cause --. neil: what do you say to them, to you, to other bankers that signed the letter? they're on the front line looking at torpedoes. talk about a meltdown there could be the same for you, right? >> it is not reasonable to believe that there's anything good will come out of going over the fiscal cliff. it will adversely affect the markets. neil: what about delaying it? talk is delaying it? what about delaying it six months? >> by delaying it wh you will do neil is buy some time. u will buy some time regardless how the election turns ouhopefully we can get the president and ngress to have an open-minded, bipartisan discussion with some longer term perspective that will

address both spending as well as the revenue side of the budget. neil: james, you're an excellent readf the markets. one of the reasons why i respect the heck out of you. i wonder how the markets respond to a delay with the hope that that delay produces an agreement on a simpler tax system, a budget reform, you know, hope always springs eternal but you and i are probably old enough to remember it doesn't alys pan out that way. so you get your delay. the markets don't share our collective hope and confidence tt you stri a deal. theymight sell off, ght? oh, and agencies might say, oh, you're punting again, you washington. and there will be hell to pay, a big market selloff. what do you thk? >> neil, i think some of the activity you're seeinggin the market rightow today and more recently this week may be anticipating the fiscal cliffff and the lack of willingness or, movement toward addressing it. there, again, i will repeat myself.

there is nothing good that will come out for alling us to go oer the cliff. neil: you're exactly right james, thanks for taking time. >> my pleasure. ne: what is the 25th anniversary, is it gold, silver? i have no idea. it is not a happy one. always good having you, james. thk you very much. >> thank you very much, neil. neil: by the way i will be live in boca raton, that's monday for the fil presidential debate. we start things off at 8:00 p.m. going through midnight. cliff will come out and romney forces are saying is foreign policy debate they will work likerazy how this economic ass -pthreatens our national security. watch creative ways they bring all of this into that. by t way, mitt romney is breaking out his swing state secret weapon and his name is paul, rand paul. the senator hitting the ro for romney but before he does he stops by here first. don't laugh, romney's entire campaign could get a jolt because of this. >> people seem to be very

curious as to how we prepare for the debates. let me tell you what i do. rst, refrain from alcohol for 65 years before the debate. [laughter] second, find the biggest available view men and mercilesslyttack it. big bird didn't even see it coming. [laughter]

neil: yeyet another sign of an healthy econy, this cod make you sick, very sick. more people are collecting full government health benefits than are actually rking full te, first time in this country's history that happened. the government is growing, jobs are not and that's got reason'sagazine worried. peter, at is incredible. i didn't kn that was statistically possible but i guess it is. what do you make of it?

>> the way medicaid works, as economy gets weaker more people endup enrolled i medicaid. medicaid is the bigone. we see risen medicare enrollment because the baby boom generation is turning 65 and hit retirement age and enroll in medicare. with medicaid, the way the program works, if you fall below on poverty scale, you will be enrolled in medicaid at that pnt. when we see 10 million people, additionally enrolled in medicaid as we have since 2008, at that pointhere were about 42 million people on the program. now there is 52 million people, that is bad sign for the economy, it means the economy is not produnghe kind of ealth, the kind of jobs that we need,people need to have their own health insurance. neil: you know wt i worry about, petern this debate, you and i chatted about it before, what got to be t distraction in the romney 47 thing. a lot of people got upset, noses properly out of joint, that included soldiers and retirees many who paid into

the system for a lot of ars and they were rightly upset but when you step back, the question mied accuracy of the percentage. how did we g to 47% paying no income taxes and that many relying on governmt ben of some sort or another? not that many deserve it but essentially doubled since i got out of college. as we know that wasust a few years ago. all right, i'm lying about that. but my point how do we get that under control? the math doesn't favor our continuing to do so? >> you know, that is a good question. i think the really worrying thing here is the poor results that we see from medicaid. not just that the program is expanding. this is a program that has surprisily bad health outcomes. if you look and compare people on medicaid versus people who are uninsured entirely cancer surval rates for medicaid patients are basically, almost no better. they did a study a coue years back looking atpeople who had major surgery under

medicaid and with no insurance at all, people with medicaid had mortality ras twice as high, more expensive, longer hospital stays. what we're trying to do with the obama administration wants to do is expand this program. obamacare expand medicaid by somewhere between 10 and 15 million people over the next decade or so. that's really worrying. rather than trying to pare back these programs, focus them on the poor, needy, folks who really need it, what we're doing is expanding them, turning them into middle class entitlements. neil: it doesn't aress something that goes on bend the scenes. doctors who cringe deing with those almost going to pay the bi entirely on the government's dime and that, it is not to put them in sort of evil terms but, that, that expands the pool of available treated out there and there's only so many doctors andhere is only so many mri machines and s many available treatments. so by just sheer math alone we're going to spread

ourselves pretty thin, right? >> medicaid beneficiaries have some of the hardest time finding providers to see them. neil: sure. >> a big part of that because reimbursement rates are so low. rather again, rather than scale the program back, focus it on the people who really n need it wt we're trying to do is exxand it and we're going to be the spreading doctors thin. what we will end up doing paying doctors even less while at the same time expanding number of people who are insured through this program we then expect them to treat. it willot add u it will not work. neil: something is very wrong when you started medicare itself, before medicaid, started ou as $66 million under esident johnson in 195 or 6, my memory escapes me and it last grown to this half trillion dollar behemoth today. it started out with focused attempt for people who really, really needed it as it did with food stamps those genuinely poor and people who really need it.

we get to the ballooning figures, some more and more getting in and some don't ne it at all and could quite fend for themselves but sets up dendency that is scary. >> medicaid when it started in the mid 1960s inflation adjusted cost was about $9 billion. last year the federal government spent about $275 billion. neil: oh, my gosh. >> states about another $100 billion. what the obama administration wants to do is double the federal spending on this the next decade. by 202 the plan is spend roughly $600 billion on a program. this is not the way to reform a program. they're expanding a program that just doesn't work. really a bad sign for the eeonomy. it is a badign for people's health. it is a bad sign f taxpayers. il: per, ank you very ch. as i tell on people on the show. not a left or right or green or blue. the green is not there to keep doing the kind of stuff

peter was elaborating on. it is not there. it i one-stop place we tell you. it is not a democratic bashing, this is not aa3 republican bashing, t numbers aren't there to support it we better come up with better math because this ain't cutti it. you remember this doozy from mitt romney a couple months ago. >> i can't tell you anything about the vp process, neil, you know that. if i did, i wou have to, you know, have to come after you with my men in black flashlight and erase your memory. neil: that was kind of funny. but i think he gotimself a comedy coach and came up with something even funnier, because last night, this guy, had them in stitches. i'm going to tell you, the dividends are already showing up. >> the campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. we, blue jeans in the morning perhaps. suits for a lunch

fund-raiser. sport coat for dinner but it is nice to finally relax and where what ann and i wear arnd the house. [laughter]

>> of course the economy is on everydy's mind. th unemployment rate is at the lowest level since i took office. i don't have a joke here. i thought it would be useful to remind everybody that the unemployment is the lowest it's been since i took office. [applause] he knows how to seize the moment this president. and already has a compelling new campaign slogan. you're better off now than you wer fo weeks ago. [laughter] neil: well, both candites trading zinges at last

night's al smith dinner. we're used to see the president drop a few fun necessary. but mitt romney hit the stage like richard pryor than richard nixon. with recent gains in likeability polls, don't dismiss this. because it has arious impact. for aew laughs maybe the governor pushed himsf over the top. might be premature but who better on all things political details than a guy who is walking encyclopedia on them, fox news digital editor, chris stirewalt. i had e opportunity to be there last night. i got to tell you it was in as much in his demeanor and delivery than the stuff he said that blew folks away in that room. and does this stuff resonate? es it have an impact? what do you think? >> well, hers the deal, comedy i about timing, comedy is also about expectations. just like politics, it is about expectations. and mitt romney knew that

since he had this reputation aseing a stiff, and being this rich guy and being all of that stuff, a tea totaller who doesn't drink he had this expectation. he went in and ableo use thaa to ip it a bit. and cast himself as somebody who could poke fun at himself and poke fun at the president and laugh. he was very funny. he clearly had good kes but also delivered them the right way. look there is no comedy route that will put everybodover the top, but what you saw in romney was the same ing you saw in ronald reagan, that you saw in bill clinton, and that you saw in george w. bush, which was the ability to get a room on your side and make them laugh and for mitt romney, who has long struggled wit a likeability gap with barack obama, it's important for him to show that he doesn't take himsel too seriously. neil: looked like george bush, when he became president th're all laughing at me so i might as well laugh at myself.

here is why it could have a impact that those reagan-carter,he only reagan-carter deba, i'm sorry, there was picture and portrayal of ronald reagan all b lucifer in pinstripes. lo and behold hh is not that bad. he is funny, amiable and warm. although much in different time and era to a dgree like mitt romney. he was portrayed in ads callous 47%, evil rich guy and private capital guy and people saw him and say, he is not so bad. kes replay on all the news channels as they do from the al smith dinner and whole different impression. does that wrm him up to peoplewho might be sitting on the fence, all right, maybe ts guy's okay? >> su and it helpedd him throughout, the expectations thatwere set about mitt romney by barack obama in six months of attacked as, and were said about mitt romney by the establishment press, mitt romney has had a fun time andretty easy time it

turns out foiling that because it was so much of a caricature. so comedy helps that. u remember, neil, barack obama said of hillary clinn you're likable enough during their debates? neil: yes, yes. >> there i such a thing as likable enough. it is not probable tt tt romney will be considered more likable than barack obama who is the youngish, first african-american, other of two, who goes on "sportscenter" and that stuff. he is lot hipper than mitt romney who is sort of hip to be square. so maybe he is never going to be as likable as him but what we haveeen is that mitt romney's favorability number, which means that people are okay with you, has gone up. thosehings are correlated. if romney can demonstrate he is an okay guy, he can laugh -pat himself tell a joke and he can do that, that helps people find him acceptab in this case you may be talking about somebody who is likable enough. neil: i love your comment about hip to be square, one

of his said i came here tonight because they wanted me to be the designated driver. justlew the house away and deadpan delivery. i think he waseinforcing and quite happy in his, you know, maybe ndy skin and just showing the world that and relishing it. 'll see. th is tough to say the president wasn't funny. we expect him toe funny. is very funny and very glib but i don't think people expected that mitt romney. we'll see if it pans out. chris, you are as kblib and funny as you are brilliant my friend. thank you for joininus tonight. >> nerdsunite. neil: nerds unite. thanks, chs stirewalt. here's what happens when you throw hillary clinton under the bus. she drives you off the cliff. what the secretary of state said in a women's magazine has the white house fearing it jt lost women period.

neil: did hill just knock barack for a loop no not on thebenghazi thing butthis woman thing? in the west wing someone wants to get a hold of hillary clinton and just throttle. it started innocently enough in a marie claire interview when the secretary of state was asked abo the chlenges women face with work and family. cutting to the chase, hilly essentially told them to shutp. ian't snd whining. i applau her frank response. i don't like whining. for example, when fat people blame the condition on thyroid. by the way the camera does add 50 pounds. it's true. back to i will had. for women it could put this democratic tiet in hell. not the best timing since team romney-rn have be getting "fast and frious" with females. after being thrown under the bus on libya as some see it,

is hillary clinton getting away as fast as she can from that bus as some now increasingly see it? we are on it. state department sayin that clinton's comments were taken t of context. i actually have the full intervw here. i will del into more. i don't think theywere taken out of context. tea party activist is here and saying thi is damage to the president and it is done. i don't think sheaid anything offensive. i think she was just saying we all have to suck it up and deal with it. we'll get into the particulaas. if you hear the clips and reaction youl think that she was demeaning or ripping women for complaining and that will do enough damage, right? >> oh, absolutely, neil. you know, ging eva longoria and the rest of the whining pathetic women out there on this war on women brigade, ynowhillar clinton ju made the case for every woman in america

to vote foritt romney because guess what? this is america. and your life is all a circumstance based upon your choices. hillary clinton simply she has completely debunked this myth somehow the is war on women when peop are out there wanting free choice and wanting women to make their own choices. this i is a big win for women and think it --. neil: she was framiig it in a way that made it kind of odd. she was asked about, a lot of women who juggle career and kids and all of th. she went on to say if you're not hpy do something about it. live in time you hav endless chces. mon money certainly helps. you don't have to money to go for but you have to work on yourself. do something. what is so novel about that? is essentially the essence of peoewho want to succeed in life anyway? male or female. she is saying if you want to

go to something in life, that is your choi, quit whining about it and go for the gus stow. >> neil, the key word, there is a key word there, women who are organized and have a support system in placeho have kids and do quite well. but let's take it even further than that if you want to separate working women and women not working. how we find out to get into those binders that governor romney was looking at because there are a lot men out there who would lovehe opportunity to work for such a strong, moral courageous leader like mitt romney. neil: that binder comment, you would think he was like, going tough pehouse here because the president was seizing on th today in virginia. want you to react to this real quick. >> sure. >> when th next president and congress could tip the balance of the highest cour in the land in a way that turns back the clock for womennd families for decades to come, you don't want soone who needs to ask for binders of women. you nt a president who is

already appointed 2 unbelievable women to the supreme court of the united ptates. neil: what do you make of that? >> well, i think it is just pretty pathetic the democrat party and this pathetic women whining brigade are out there actually trying to convince women we're so helpless and so needy and so pathetii we need a man ii the white house making decisions for us. there is o such thing as going backwards. women are the largest minority in this country, so i think that is why you see women shifting towards mitt romney because t th're stotuying all the bs coming out of this party. neil: well, you speak your mind, katrina. i will say that. good seeing you again. ank you very,ery much. >> thank you, neil. neil: like father, notlike son. why rand is going to bat for mitt despite dad.

neil: hiad might have doubts about mitt, does not mean rand paul does. prove tea party kentucky repuican sen storm new hampshire. state is popular and big government is not. nator, always a pleasure to have you with us. anks for joining us. >> glad to be with you, neil. if i were mitt romney naturally i wa you there. father certainly popular there. libertaria view of conservative view of limited governme extremely popular there. is that a sign tha mitt romney is worried there? >> well, you know, ion't think soecessarily. i think that they have just asked me to go to different place, ohio, new hampshire, nevada, se of these places have appeal to libertaria libertarian-minded republicans and i think i can helpo get the enthusiasm goi and get our base energized. >> because the reason why i asked, if your father, still been kind of, yo know, not

so peachy keen on mitt romney. certainly not peachyeen on barackbama. i wouldn't know who he votes for. s hetold you? if he is not aggressively supporti mitromney, what is he doing? >> i'm not authorized to speak on his behalf. i have to talk him at thanksgiving see what i'm allowed to say. right now he hasn't told me one way or another. neilhe doesn't mind, you, he doesn't mind you going on the sump for mitt romney and to the degree you have own your support? >> no. and he realizes that we're fferent people. there are many things that i will support, ma causes th i will cmpion th he has championed for years. but won't always be the same. and i consider the politics of the election to be the strategy for ting to get e be person, the next person between goveor romney and obama is stark. i dd worry about 23 million people outf work. i worry about businesses are terrified of this president. think have to have a

change inirection forthe country. while ron paul was my first pi, i'm very happy to be supporting governor romney and i thi he will make a difference. neil: do you think he is the before shot at getting serious tax budet reform? the argument for, getting extension, senator, in all the tax rates th expire, spending cuts,is, that, if it could be cobbled togeer with a deal to seriously reform the tax code, the whole budget process, mitt romney the guy to do it? conversely they say punting this isn't the answer. it would hur a president-elect romney if that were to come to pass. what do you think? >> i'm off the opinion rather than trying to get overall tax refo in one big huge package, that wl take a year afr romney's elected. my advice to him, break it up into pieces and immediately start passing something to show the american people we will help them. corporate nng tax, many democrats agree we should lower it. why don't we lower the corporate income tax andot

make it part of some 2,000 page bill. les just lower the coorate inme tax and if people say, that will add to the deficit, let's all offset it wi spending cuts. neil: what about the romney position, when i comes t, with lowering tes for across board particularly for the rich? that itill be revenue neutral? i take enough credits deductions allowances away. it is a wash. the rich will remain paying 60% of the taxes as they do now? but his big emphasis seems to be in these debates, senator, it is revee neutral. that struck many as a surprise, and they were expecting a big tax cut and now they fear looking at big tax cut. might not be a simpler tax system but but won' be a big tax cut. what do you feel about that. revenue neutral tax cuts don'excite me. i want to stimulate the private sector by leaving more money in the private ctor. when i campaign around kentucky, ohio, new hampshire i want more money

left in the pockets of ople who earned it. neil: he is not doinghat. he is not doing that. >> well, i will have my voice. that wilbe my voice because my voice will be, we balance it. i don't want to add to the deficit either, but we balance it with spending cuts. i'm fo getting rid of deductions. neil: senato i'm sorry, he doesn't talk as much about that. i'm not saying vaguely, you don't know what specifically he will cut. pbs isne of them. go ahead. >> the reason i make th point is, that everybody's hassling governor romney will your deduions add up to enough to balance the tax reforms so it is revenue neutral? my point would be first, we want more money left in the private sector so it doesn't have to be neutral. if you want it to balance so it doesn't add to the deficit let's cut government spending. that shoulbe the message. whenever we grown the econy we lowered rates for ebb. we got rid of deductions, when we lowered the rate, under reagan we cut the

unemployment rate in half and sevel ars ofgrowth of five or 6%. to get 12 mlion jobs y can't be revenue neutral. i say lower taxes for everybody and c vernment spending. neil: there is a conpt. geg growth of five or 6%. there was a time we did that dung the reagan years and boom years coming out of recession, exactly what we did quarter in, quarter out. by comparison that is fi times faster than t economy is growing right now. you think that was then and can't happen now? when w come back with rand paul, how specifically it can happen now. can happen now. stick around.

♪ music kids will spend the super duper party oopers, sing about ants in their pants. brushing for t minutes now, can save your child from severe tooth pain later. minutes twica day. they have the time. >> if they scceed and are elected in january and immediately repealhat we've done in regard to medicare and health carere, your premiumsill go up on

average $312 a year immediately, for those on medicare right now. that's what will happen. medicare trust fund will beco insolvent in 2016. neil: i never know where they get these nmbs but anyway, rand paul heard that. what do you think of that, rand? >> i think medicare everybody agrees medicare is about $35 trillion in the hole a is and has to b reformed. i ld the president, face-to-face, a year and a half ago, that if heould come together with us and reform, we couldld save medicare and save social security, that he would be elected in a laslide. several republicans ld him this and he chose not to work with us. and i ink that is really the failure of leadership is. he hasn't reached out to us at all. he doesn't inve republics to do anything. ne: senator, i think you have had,ounted a failure among repuicans and you experiencethis. you comep with a very bold proposal.

let's get being namby-pamby about this. look for a big cut first ye. beubstantial and quit pussyfooting. they left you at the altar. not everyone. i remember that phenenon. i deeply admired your guts but they didn't want to go out th you on the 30 rail there. >> well,ou know, i think entitlements, if weon't fix them, and pauly has been pretty bold talking about how to fix entitlements. neil: he w the house version of you. they did the same him. you think he would have, you know, did he use his deodorant that day. everyone avoided him. >>el, you kno, i'm of e opinion that all of the old days are gone. the day where you could scare people and say, oh, repuicans will take away your medicare. neil: you're right, you're right. absolutely right. here we go again. i want, if republicans really mean what they say and i think they do, and democrats mean what ty say about eventual getting

entitlements under control and i actually want to say i believe they do, is it just the electione've got to gepast, to each side, things calm down and that's when we get something done or what? >> i fear maybe things will have to get worse in our countrand we'll have to approach aebt crisis before people will be seriouabout it because people do worry about the politics of this. they're afraid to say that the age for social security or the age for medicare needs to graduallyise in order to save these programs. people are still afid to say that. t i think if you're honest, i think right now the election and the population has changedhere i think they actually will reward people who are honest and who admit we have problems and sa yes, republicans and democrats just need to throw out the politics and let' o ahead and fix these problems. neil: well younow, i'm not blowing you smoke, senator but the reason why i always enjoyed chatting withyou ca them as you see them and get risk of getting rapped on both sides. i mention the republican

thing. you criticized romney approach on defense spendin notivi an inch and somethg has to give there. there is certainly room for cutting in defense. that brought out everybody and uncle in the conservative moment, no, n defense is sacrosct. you were sayg it isn't. it should be the pt of whathod be looked a in every dget overhaul. >> ultimate comomise. only way you eer balance the budget conservatives like myself believetional defense is ry important, compromise, not every dollar is spent on the military is sacred and well-spt. liberals i not every doar on welfare is well spt. we compromise and bring both down. do compromise in washington. we raise military spendi and ise domestic spending every year. that's why we're a trillion dollars in the hole. neil: we can find a middle ground. not that i could broker a deal, sometimes, senator falls on me to save the country. maybe what we can do is what

you' saying. democrats should be open reforming entitlements andd3 at least slowing their growth. okay, republicans shold not be so dogmatic about defense, can't be touched. that alone would getus moving toward an endgame here. but we don't. it is, the ection magically going to present that opportunity? >> well, i think what's happening is circumstances wi make peopl address this. ciumstances are getting worse. entitlements are growing so rapidly they will consume all of the money the budget within a fewew years. so think circumstances will tell all of us have to do it. to me it is inevitability. i don't care whether you're republican or democrat, is inevitability youill have to fix entitlements becae there's not enough young people and there is lot old people. there is mographic shift and we're living longer. these are facts and they're inescapable. theuestion is, wi we do it with this election o are we going to wait until things get worse a we

begin inting up so much money, that prices begin to rise dramatically and everybody is worried abou a chaotic situationr whether we fix it in a reasonable rational way, gradually, but ge started now. that's the real question, whether weait for chaos or we do it now. neil: senator, thank you, very, very muc good seeing you again. >> thank you neil. neil: senator rand paul. he touched on a couple of things i emphasize befor we cut awayvery, very quickly. it is easy to blame democrats. it is easy f the democts to blame republicann. i'm not here to blame anyone. i want to stress here, guys we've t a big ol' pile of problemst have come up overcade of sort of blind side he hadly spending mey we didn't hav and ner telling the people the truth. the direcon we' in to the senator's point is a direction can not be sustained not with money we have, and prise

ne: in the fourth time is the charm. the final debate. the third one between between obama andomney now called the rubber match. this is for all the marbles. whether the meter is moved coming keep in mind that romney forces have told us economic policy, a growing bt and spending problems

and international security ♪ lou: good evening, everybody. with18 days until the presidential election, governor mney is maintaining his slig lead in the national lls over presidt obama. the republic nominee has moved above 50% in key polls, maintaining that level with just over two weeks fm election day. and that is histically a strong indicator o victory inin november. the pos turned positive for governor romney quickly after the first debate and have strengthened sin.